I'd actually recommend not seeing it in IMAX. It makes the picture much blurrier.
007 SPECTRE |OT| It's me, Austin. It was me all along, Austin.
- Thread starter Rich!
- Start date
- Status
But the seats get the ladies off with vibrating explosions. :'(
James would have wanted it that way.
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
hype
Careless
I really wish he hadn't said what it stood for at all, would have been a real classic moment then, guess they were scared people might complain.
Patrick Bateman
Member
cardinalmind
Member
Saw this @ the cinemas thanks to my co-workers and all I can say is it was good. A bit dragging at times but some action scenes really are good. Though I don't like how they've treated their main antagonist. It made him just a petty psychopath.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
I like Skyfall a whole lot more than most people so real excited to ditch work, smoke a bowl and see this in a couple hours.
I hated Skyfall the first time I saw it, basically it felt like it spent so much time introducing new characters and saying goodbye to old ones it had no time to fit in a plot, but it clicked for me once I realized letting go of the past was a big part of its theme.
So regardless of the reactions I'm going to keep an open mind and remember how wrong I was on Skyfall at first. So pumped.
I hated Skyfall the first time I saw it, basically it felt like it spent so much time introducing new characters and saying goodbye to old ones it had no time to fit in a plot, but it clicked for me once I realized letting go of the past was a big part of its theme.
So regardless of the reactions I'm going to keep an open mind and remember how wrong I was on Skyfall at first. So pumped.
Right, so more detailed impressions:
On the plus side, I continue to dig Craig's Bond and enjoyed the MI6 cast from Skyfall even more this time around (probably because they were more assets than obstacles to him in this movie). Bautista made for a great henchman villain, and Lea Seydoux was absolutely lovely and a (mostly) strong character, despite some occasionally clunky dialogue and a couple unearned moments.
No, the movie isn't shot by Roger Deakins (think you guys need to get over this already), but it still looks sharp as hell, and Mendes has really upped his action game. The Mexico City sequence and train fight are standout setpieces, though I enjoyed the car chase in Rome too. As someone said on the last page, the focus of the action here is more on choreography than cinematography like Skyfall, and it's a big improvement.
And generally, I think the movie is really strong and focused for about the first hour and 40 mins or so, right up to when they get off the train.
On the less-than-plus side, I have mixed feelings about Waltz's character and the last 30ish minutes of the film in general. The pacing really drags in the finale and seems to go on for too long while at the same time rushing to wrap up a lot of its loose threads. I don't necessarily mind
As a random aside, I also liked Waltz's
.
Looking up, that seems like a lot more negatives than positives. :lol But I generally really enjoyed the film and my initial reaction is that its my second favorite of the Craig run.
On the plus side, I continue to dig Craig's Bond and enjoyed the MI6 cast from Skyfall even more this time around (probably because they were more assets than obstacles to him in this movie). Bautista made for a great henchman villain, and Lea Seydoux was absolutely lovely and a (mostly) strong character, despite some occasionally clunky dialogue and a couple unearned moments.
No, the movie isn't shot by Roger Deakins (think you guys need to get over this already), but it still looks sharp as hell, and Mendes has really upped his action game. The Mexico City sequence and train fight are standout setpieces, though I enjoyed the car chase in Rome too. As someone said on the last page, the focus of the action here is more on choreography than cinematography like Skyfall, and it's a big improvement.
And generally, I think the movie is really strong and focused for about the first hour and 40 mins or so, right up to when they get off the train.
On the less-than-plus side, I have mixed feelings about Waltz's character and the last 30ish minutes of the film in general. The pacing really drags in the finale and seems to go on for too long while at the same time rushing to wrap up a lot of its loose threads. I don't necessarily mind
the foster-brother connection between Blofeld and Bond, but it was a pointless contrivance to make. Bond has no reaction to it, it doesn't affect the story; I'm not opposed to the idea, but they just didn't do anything with it, so why bother?
More problematic is Blofeld himself, who comes off as the most ineffectual villain of Craig's run. To echo another point made on the last page, Quantum did a much better job of going portraying the shadowy enigmatic organization that has people everywhere. You really don't get that same feel for SPECTRE's reach here, and Blofeld personally feels much less threatening than any other bad guy. That's mostly because Bond so easily foils him three times in a row.
Like I said above, the movie starts to unravel after Bond and Swann get off the train. They're quickly escorted to Blofeld's desert lair, which isn't much of anything, and very easily escape. Shit, Bond shoots a couple guys, blows a gas tank and the ENTIRE place goes up? Even the exploding hotel in QoS -- which seemed to be made of pure gasoline -- lasted longer.
The return to London is an improvement, and I really like the idea of Bond chasing Blofeld and saving Swann (in a reverse of his failed attempt to save Vesper) through the ruins of MI6 while being confronted with pictures of his dead friends and former enemies. But then again, Bond makes it out of that situation too easily while making Blofeld look like a clown, then clowns him again shortly after by shooting his helicopter down with a pistol!
Also, much as I like the continuity of the Craig movies, I think they forced it too hard here. Had they kept the past movie references to Q's revelation and the MI6 setpiece toward the end, I think that would have been much more effective. But as is, it feels like Blofeld name drops past characters a lot in between those two moments, forcing the connection without even really explaining the connection. Bond coming across the Vesper interrogation tape, staring at it for a moment, then moving on was a great example of the right way to address past continuity imo.
I like the happy ending, but didn't really buy Bond and Swann's relationship as the one that saves him from his life as a 00. I don't know if they necessarily needed more screentime together either, and it wasn't that they didn't have any chemistry. For whatever reason I just didn't feel that this was the Vesper 2.0 that the film wants you to buy into by the end.
Also, C's death was shot very strangely.
More problematic is Blofeld himself, who comes off as the most ineffectual villain of Craig's run. To echo another point made on the last page, Quantum did a much better job of going portraying the shadowy enigmatic organization that has people everywhere. You really don't get that same feel for SPECTRE's reach here, and Blofeld personally feels much less threatening than any other bad guy. That's mostly because Bond so easily foils him three times in a row.
Like I said above, the movie starts to unravel after Bond and Swann get off the train. They're quickly escorted to Blofeld's desert lair, which isn't much of anything, and very easily escape. Shit, Bond shoots a couple guys, blows a gas tank and the ENTIRE place goes up? Even the exploding hotel in QoS -- which seemed to be made of pure gasoline -- lasted longer.
The return to London is an improvement, and I really like the idea of Bond chasing Blofeld and saving Swann (in a reverse of his failed attempt to save Vesper) through the ruins of MI6 while being confronted with pictures of his dead friends and former enemies. But then again, Bond makes it out of that situation too easily while making Blofeld look like a clown, then clowns him again shortly after by shooting his helicopter down with a pistol!
Also, much as I like the continuity of the Craig movies, I think they forced it too hard here. Had they kept the past movie references to Q's revelation and the MI6 setpiece toward the end, I think that would have been much more effective. But as is, it feels like Blofeld name drops past characters a lot in between those two moments, forcing the connection without even really explaining the connection. Bond coming across the Vesper interrogation tape, staring at it for a moment, then moving on was a great example of the right way to address past continuity imo.
I like the happy ending, but didn't really buy Bond and Swann's relationship as the one that saves him from his life as a 00. I don't know if they necessarily needed more screentime together either, and it wasn't that they didn't have any chemistry. For whatever reason I just didn't feel that this was the Vesper 2.0 that the film wants you to buy into by the end.
Also, C's death was shot very strangely.
As a random aside, I also liked Waltz's
scar makeup
Looking up, that seems like a lot more negatives than positives. :lol But I generally really enjoyed the film and my initial reaction is that its my second favorite of the Craig run.
I felt like
C's death was trying to make it look incriminating for M or something. Like, he falls off by accident but then everyone looks up and sees M standing there as if he pushed him off. That could then lead to MI6 being shuttered completely because some footage or something makes it looks like the boss just straight murdered the new head of intelligence. But then nothing comes of it.
For a sec I also entertained the idea that the entire end of the film was a hallucination and Bond was still in the chair getting tortured. Because there were a couple weird blurry shots when he first gets back to London, the whole escape felt absurdly convenient, and the first drill that was supposed to mess with his balance apparently did actually nothing.
For a sec I also entertained the idea that the entire end of the film was a hallucination and Bond was still in the chair getting tortured. Because there were a couple weird blurry shots when he first gets back to London, the whole escape felt absurdly convenient, and the first drill that was supposed to mess with his balance apparently did actually nothing.
That was my first thought too, but then yeah, nothing happens.
Haloid1177
Banned
I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of the film, and then it all kinda fell apart in the last act. Still miles better than Solace, but a definite step back from Skyfall.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Yeah that's what I thought too lol
Glorious Ownage
Member
Not going to lie I was nodding off as well. It was still enjoyable but that was by far the weakest and most unintimidating villain I can recall from the bond series
KarneeKarnay
Member
I don't get any of the complaints with this movie. Visually I thought this movie was fantastic. Great fight sequences and I loved the villain. I would go as far as to say one of the best 007 films I've ever seen (and I've seen all of them.).
My only two problems with this film is the backstory between James and the Villain, and the way it tried to tie together all the previous films. It felt a bit silly, but overall I had a lot of fun watching this. Not a single complaint was heard leaving the packed cinema.
My only two problems with this film is the backstory between James and the Villain, and the way it tried to tie together all the previous films. It felt a bit silly, but overall I had a lot of fun watching this. Not a single complaint was heard leaving the packed cinema.
Yup. I'm with them on most of their points. I don't know if I'd say "second best" in the franchise, but it's by far my second favorite Craig film... and I don't dislike Skyfall at all.
I heard the latter
SpideySenses
Member
It's definitely
, I'm guessing it wouldn't translate well to US audiences but the joke got a reaction when I saw the movie in England.
Edit: Ah, you're talking about the M line, not Bonds. I heard it as
.
cunt
Edit: Ah, you're talking about the M line, not Bonds. I heard it as
careless
Nah my crowd laughed hard at "I guess we know what the stands for" too... and then totally died after M's follow up. :lol
Yup... they shouldn't have done the follow-up
Anton Sugar
Member
That's a nice funny little microcosm of this movie's problems: little-to-no setup.
Hahahaha, wonderful breakdown. That part was absolutely nonsense.
Plus, wonderful as Seydoux is, it was a mistake to have another Craig Bond-era
"flirting on a train with leading lady" scene. Can't come close to Vesper.
Those people are literally insane.
Exact same reaction as my theatre.
.hacked
Member
Felt like the
... It's almost like they realized the movie had to end and rushed to completion.
Also, Bautista's
Glad I wasn't the only one.
torture scene with the needle device went nowhere. I was half expecting the EXTREMELY EASY escape and destruction of the complex to be a 'vision' in his mind, culminating with a fade back into the chair when she leaves him on the street and they spent way too long focusing on James standing alone. All the things blofeldt said the device was supposed to do to him... did nothing.
Also, Bautista's
baddie was wasted. They showed his silver thumbs once, and never used them again..
Glad I wasn't the only one.
Anton Sugar
Member
Yeah, that was another waste of time.
"Who could forget a face like yours?" is charming but really undercuts how dangerous/vile Blofeld is (or is supposed to be).
Blofeld uses BALANCE DEBILITATION NEEDLE on Bond
BALANCE DEBILITATION NEEDLE has no effect
Blofeld uses FACIAL DISSOCIATION NEEDLE on Bond
FACIAL DISSOCIATION NEEDLE has no effect
BALANCE DEBILITATION NEEDLE has no effect
Blofeld uses FACIAL DISSOCIATION NEEDLE on Bond
FACIAL DISSOCIATION NEEDLE has no effect
Also,
"You shouldn't stare." "Well, you shouldn't be looking like that."
I am also glad I wasn't the only one. I guess that'd just be the twist from (mid-eighties film)
_____Brazil____________
Or at least
have the torture actually have an effect on him. I don't know if a Bond who can't shoot straight or keep his balance would be a fun hero to follow, but overcoming that would probably be better than "easily finds the girl, shoots down helicopter with a pistol"
Hah. Wow, this thread is so negative. Guess I'm the outlier.
Eh. I liked that. Craig's flirtations have taken on an abrupt and direct quality that are funny in an intentionally awkward kind of way. It's a sort of wit that's befitting his version of the character.
Eh. I liked that. Craig's flirtations have taken on an abrupt and direct quality that are funny in an intentionally awkward kind of way. It's a sort of wit that's befitting his version of the character.
badcrumble
Member
The film seems to have been made out of a sense of obligation to depict SPECTRE and Blofeld without anyone ever really giving a thought to how to make them actually seem like genuinely imposing multi-film threats.
Anton Sugar
Member
One small thing that stood out to me:
Again, that's not really a mark against the movie, but I thought it was interesting. I know it was supposed to represent how far reaching/multi-faceted this organization was.
My issue wasn't with Craig's delivery, it was with the writing. Especially after hearing Craig talk about how he hopes his Bond doesn't come off as sexist/misogynist as the character has been in the past. When it comes to that, Spectre is not a great movie to exemplify those (desired) changes.
the Spectre icon/symbol of the octopus is never really directly addressed, right? The intro vid was steeped in this, even getting into tentacle-sex imagery, but the only time it's really "focused" on is when Q makes that pretty little Powerpoint and arranges each of the previous villains on arms of the octopus.
Again, that's not really a mark against the movie, but I thought it was interesting. I know it was supposed to represent how far reaching/multi-faceted this organization was.
My issue wasn't with Craig's delivery, it was with the writing. Especially after hearing Craig talk about how he hopes his Bond doesn't come off as sexist/misogynist as the character has been in the past. When it comes to that, Spectre is not a great movie to exemplify those (desired) changes.
Well, that's about it, isn't it? The imagery is obvious. Would've been pretty on the nose for them to sit back and explain "our many tentacles", or something to that effect.
I guess I don't see how that line is particularly sexist or misogynistic. The Bond franchise is steeped in gross misogyny -- a flirtatious quip in response to Madeline's initial flirtatious quip strikes me as relatively tame in comparison.
For the people worried about Bautista's
appearance on the train, and it being "pointless" since bond was only on his way to the hideout..
Keep in mind that there is a pretty good chance that he has no idea where they are going, and is only operating under search and destroy directives. It wouldn't make much sense for this organization of criminals to have their supreme leader's residence published.
Keep in mind that there is a pretty good chance that he has no idea where they are going, and is only operating under search and destroy directives. It wouldn't make much sense for this organization of criminals to have their supreme leader's residence published.
Anton Sugar
Member
Like I said, it's really not a big deal, but I thought that would have been one of the first things addressed prior to them actually
understanding the organization and how far-reaching it is.
Given that Spectre apparently
has surveillance everywhere, plus Blofeld knew Bond was coming (somehow), I feel like it would have been pretty easy to stop the kill order. I never got the impression that Bautista was just some dumb brute--I have to assume membership to Spectre is really exclusive.
It's not funny, it's sexist.
Lol. How is it sexist? At that point in the film, they're basically a couple. She comes out in a lovely dress and flashes a weird grin and says it's impolite to stare. He responds that she shouldn't look that way.
Missing the misogyny here. I took it as flirtatious from both parties.Taking issue with that line, particularly in the context of a Bond film, seems hyper-sensitive.
Patrick Bateman
Member
That's what I thought, too.
And I never thought of it as a personal vendetta he had against Bond, like that he's rebelling against his boss and acted independently.
And considering Spectre was globally connected with everyone and everything, it made even less sense.
Anton Sugar
Member
It's just another play on the idea that if a women dresses sexy, she deserves to be stared at, which is shitty. You can be flirtatious without resorting to sexist tropes (Casino Royale did a much better job at this). I know the Bond franchise is steeped in gross misogyny/sexism, this movie included--but I was hoping, based on Craig's comments, that it wouldn't be an issue.
Bellucci's character was a really hot Piece of Information that is creepily seduce. Seydoux's character would have been much improved, IMO, if she actually didn't develop the paper-thin relationship with Bond. She's also almost 20 years younger than Craig, so there's that, too.
They're most definitely not a couple at that point, either.
Haha wow, are you kidding me?
Bond's line makes it out that it's her fault that he's staring, when it's actually his. She did nothing wrong, Bond is at fault and it is sexist.
I'm with you on the Bellucci bit. Worst moment in the film for that exact reason.
Going to have to agree to disagree on the Madeline Swan thing. Even if they're not a couple, there's an element of attraction there, and Swan has already proven herself to be a fairly complex and interesting character. I don't think the implication is that women deserve to be stared at -- that's taking it too far. These are two people that are sexually attracted to eachother, and Swan flirtatiously initiates the exchange.
Yes, you're right. It's entirely that political. Not just a fairly tame Bond flirtation, but rather a grand statement on the fact that women are asking for it =\
Jesus.
I agree with you, except for the bolded -- they haven't really gotten together at all until then.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
How so? The US critics didn't see it until long after the English ones did. And from what I've read of them so far, I'd be willing to trust the Yanks in this situation, given that they've laid out legitimate movie breaking (and potentially series breaking, judging from how the movie retroactively inserts references that were never brought up in the prior Craig films in a vain attempt to make the whole thing seem more connected) criticisms that should be taken as a warning to those who either want to go and see the movie, or for the filmmakers to look at what was wrong and try to correct that the best they can in the next one. I don't know how much control Sony has had over its production, but it's especially clear judging from the abhorrent Amazing Spiderman movies and what they had planned for them, that they wanted their own take on the Avengers and MCU in general. And like I said, seeing that Spectre tried to make every prior Craig movie in the series seem more important than they really should be, among the other issues they highlighted, I feel that I would trust the US critics in that regard.
I'm probably just rambling at this point.
Anton Sugar
Member
Agree to disagree. I'm not saying it's the most egregious moment of sexism in Bond history--you're right, it's fairly tame, especially for Bond standards--but it still made me roll my eyes.
I also don't really think they had much flirtation prior to that point (unless you count "if you try to touch me I'll kill you), so it felt really out of character, to me, as well.
Exactly. Everyone laughed at that line and was thinking the exact same thing.
Then he clarified... lame.
- Status